PonyFans.com

leaves SMU out at least from mega-conferences which I think is likely

However, the essence of this Model is hinged on Texas' decision to go East. That seems to be the consensus of most non-Texans. Most Texas fams think a similiar Model would develop with Texas going West choosing the PAC over the SEC based on academics-that's what I believe to be more likely. So pivot Texas and at least 3 other schools west and play 52 card pickup with the rest

In ESPN's scenario this would still probably leave SMU in a conference with...

http://espn.go.com/blog/sportscenter/po ... nce-jumble

SWC:

Texas Tech(or either TCU or Oklahoma St,)
Baylor
UH
SMU
Iowa St.

then you might combine with MWC schools like

Air Force
Colorado St.
New Mexico
Boise St.
(maybe even BYU)

or those schools might decide to merge with the WAC whereupon the openings would go to some of the CUSA teams like

Tulsa
Rice
UTEP
Tulane
Southern Miss
Memphis(if they don't go to the Big East)

All of this speculation is based on Big Televen adding more than one additional team.

They want ND but it is not happening, so do you poach the BE for Pitt or Big 12 for Missouri?

I don't see a mass raid on BE or Big 12 by the Big Televen, however the other major player in this mess has to be UT.

The Big 12 either lives or dies depending on what the Longhorns do. If UT goes to the Pac 10 and takes along aTm, then perhaps Colorado and ? wants to go with them.

The Pac 10 is a finicky conference that loves to tout their academic creds.
I doubt Utah and Colorado will cut it unless $$$$ is the only consideration.

Perhaps the Big Story should be what happened at the Pac 10-Big 12 pow wow in Phoenix re: the TV alliance.

BTW I really dislike the Big Televen and this money grab! Might as well start paying the players out in the open, forget academics, and just be the PCL (Professional College League).

Disgusting!

Rant over.

The idea that the PAC 10 would give TCU a second glance is ridiculous.

I think that's why this writer picked TCU which makes little sense to me. The fact is Texas can pick who they need to come with them (probably OU, Colorado, A&M and 2 of Utah, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St.) and the PAC can either accept it or face extinction. A school like Stanford might overplay its hand and find itself on the outside looking in if they refused to release their blackball. In the Mega Conference scenario, Texas holds the future lanscape of D1A football in its hand

Stanford out of the Pac 10 is a bigger joke than us in the PAC 10...

NickSMU17 wrote:Stanford out of the Pac 10 is a bigger joke than us in the PAC 10...

The four California schools are all joined at the hip.

California Stanford, UCLA California, USC Stanford, Stanford UCLA, California USC, and USC UCLA all love to beat each other!

The nocal socal, private public, and traditional rivalry aspects all come into play.

The fact that Stanford and USC are Private Schools with high academics, while the two UC Public Schools require almost a 4.0 HS GPA to even gain admittance all stoke the rivalries as well.

Stanford will never be on the outside looking in (plus everyone loves to kick their [deleted])!

I suspect the SEC semi-pro FB programs, their rabid fan loyalties, their BcS alleged NC's, and their TV $$$ have brought out the jealousies of the other conferences resulting in all this realignment BS.

TV $$$ are stoking the flames when a simple equitable Playoff System would salve everything without relegating the "have-nots" to Ivy/Patriot League non-relevancy.

really frustrating how much power the longhorns have... bunch of livestock

Texas almost joined SEC in 1992 when SEC last expanded until the Texas Legislature stepped in and demanded A&M be included with the Longhorns. SEC didn’t want the Aggies so Texas was lost:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports ... n-now.html

Most of the same people still involved.

you got it back-assed backwards-Texas had no interest whatsoever in the SEC-Texas A&M did. This article is a mischaracterization of the facts. That's my final answer. Go to a Texas website-see what they think. Texas wants nothing to do with the SEC. Despite the conventional wisdom of the misinformed on this site-Texas has standards that are incompatible with the SEC. The linked article is a much more accurate summary of the interest of UT and A&M in the SEC and Pac

Maybe you're right but here's what Former SEC commissioner Harvey Schiller had to say:

“Texas had virtually agreed to become an SEC member. Arkansas and Texas would join the SEC from the Western side and South Carolina and either Florida State, Miami or Virginia Tech would enter from the East”.

"The one that made the most sense was Texas," Schiller said. "I spent some time with DeLoss Dodds (the Texas athletic director) and he really wanted to join the conference."

Done deal...... Everything agreed to but the name on the dotted line. Then, it all came apart.
"The state legislature (in Texas) somehow got wind of it through Texas A&M and said we had to bring in both schools or we couldn't take Texas," Schiller said.

I forgot to post the link-this is the conventional wisdom I heard reported many times

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA ... lArticle=y

I do agree with those that point to better leadership in the President's and AD office-this is a very accurate portrayal of the naivete of SMU leadership at the time:

"Even when the administrators at TCU, SMU, Rice and Houston received advance confirmation from those involved, some still refused to believe it.

In February 1994, days before the league dissolved, SMU AD Forrest Gregg privately asked Dodds if the move was imminent. Dodds said yes.

Gregg told SMU president A. Kenneth Pye of the conversation. Pye responded that it couldn't be happening, because the other league presidents hadn't said anything about it. Two days later, it came true.

"We were in Dallas, with a long and illustrious tradition, and we thought that would work," Gregg said.

The move was imminent to all but the most naive observers at least a 1 and 1/2 years before the move. SMU, Rice and TCU were lead by an incredible bunch of fools at the time. SMU was also lead by an AD in Forrest Gregg who should have known better but never had the balls to tell Ken Pye he was full of [deleted]. Then SMU hired another yes sir boss Head Coach in Tom Rossley who also never had the balls to put his job on the line by stating the truth to Ken Pye. Good guys-wrong choice for the defining moments in SMU History. But they weren't alone to blame-general indifference, lack of a voice for a strong athletic program and impotency of leadership at all levels of SMU goverance are equally to blame. There was an absolute void and effective leadership advocating a strong athletic program between 1989 and 1996 at SMU.

...... and yes that all happened a couple years after the SEC expansion negotiations between Texas and the SEC.

If Texas did join the SEC, then finding 16 teams for the Pac-10 is gonna be tough and the likelyhood of some of those teams heading West such as TCU, Kansas, K-State is unlikely. I think the Pac-10 would rather have 14 teams than 16 at that point with a few outliers or people that dont fit in academically.

If Texas(and Texas A&M) goes to the Pac-10 though then they would get to 16. SEC would too with OK/OK State and robbing from the ACC.

Texas really does have some options here but alot of this is going to still be a fallout of what the Big-10 does. And what happens to us has everything to do with what Texas does.

Stallion wrote:I do agree with those that point to better leadership in the President's and AD office-this is a very accurate portrayal of the naivete of SMU leadership at the time:

"Even when the administrators at TCU, SMU, Rice and Houston received advance confirmation from those involved, some still refused to believe it.

In February 1994, days before the league dissolved, SMU AD Forrest Gregg privately asked Dodds if the move was imminent. Dodds said yes.

Gregg told SMU president A. Kenneth Pye of the conversation. Pye responded that it couldn't be happening, because the other league presidents hadn't said anything about it. Two days later, it came true.

"We were in Dallas, with a long and illustrious tradition, and we thought that would work," Gregg said.

The move was imminent to all but the most naive observers at least a 1 and 1/2 years before the move. SMU, Rice and TCU were lead by an incredible bunch of fools at the time. SMU was also lead by an AD in Forrest Gregg who should have known better but never had the balls to tell Ken Pye he was full of [deleted]. Then SMU hired another yes sir boss Head Coach in Tom Rossley who also never had the balls to put his job on the line by stating the truth to Ken Pye. Good guys-wrong choice for the defining moments in SMU History. But they weren't alone to blame-general indifference, lack of a voice for a strong athletic program and impotency of leadership at all levels of SMU goverance are equally to blame. There was an absolute void and effective leadership advocating a strong athletic program between 1989 and 1996 at SMU.

Ken Pye was dying at the time. He resigned within 90 days of this exercise, and was gone in another month. You might not like him, nor like his reasons for his positions. He might have been a bad thing for SMU football. But this gaffe is easily explained. He wasn't naive. He could run circles around you intellectually, if your presence here on the board is any indication. He was dying. So leave the guy alone and move on. SMU is in a different place now.